Are these Chemtrails?

reply to post by elrem48

For ME they are the likes of something I never grew up seeing in my sky....which entails quite a few decades. I may not give the answer you are looking for, but I DO know when I'm being baited by someone who THINKS he's a smartass!

Why am I a smartass?....I asked you a question is all

I'm 50 years of age, I've seen contrails all my life, they are exactly the same today as they were decades ago!....there may be more now than there was when I was a lad.....but I think you'll find that there are a hell of a lot more planes than there were 40 or 50 years ago.


And you never answered the question....what do chemtrails look like?

reply to post by tommyjo


So I see Tankerenemy is at it again with the chemtrail videos.



And the fact that people actually believe his crap is baffling to me.

I believe those are not contrails. Anyone trying to tell me that these chemically laced trails are simply water vapor need to find me an image from the 1950's or the 1970's which shows saturation of "contrails" such as these images show and I've seen with my own eyes over my city. Some of them have a black or red line through them. SHOW me an image from before 1970 with the SAME characteristics. YOU CAN'T. These images from the OP ARE chemtrails NOT contrails as many would like to dream...

reply to post by Opportunia


Are you assuming these trails are 'chemically laced' or can you show that they are?

No-one is going to be able to show the same level of trails in the sky 40-60 years ago as there are now. No debunker is even going to try to argue with you that there was. Do you understand why, or would you like to be informed?

reply to post by Opportunia

SHOW me an image from before 1970 with the SAME characteristics. YOU CAN'T.

How about WWll...







or these...

Originally posted by Bilk22

Why use examples from craft that's not been flying for half a century? Most all modern commercial aircraft use turbofan engines, don't they? They all produce heat as a byproduct. Why would one at the same elevation, leave a trail and the other not?

What do you mean haven't been flying for half a century? There are still flying examples of Boeing 707s and also B-17s. Did you not even realise that? No offence intended but if your level of aviation knowledge is that limited then no wonder you are confused!

Apologies as in my earlier post I stated that the Boeing 707 was an earlier variant with turbojet engines. It is in fact a later example with turbofan engines. (Pratt and Whitney JT3D)

Pratt & Whitney JT3D turbofan

Even John Travolta still operates his turbofan powered 707.

Boeing 707 operators

Did you not read the report? The Airbus turbofans are more efficient than the older Boeings turbofans. 'Contrails of more efŽficient engines form at smaller altitudes than those of less efficient engines.' They also noted the temperatures of the two engines and the temp threshold for the formation of the contrails between the different engines.

elib.dlr.de...

The link has already been posted but here it is again. Not really that hard to understand when they operate at different temperatures. You seem to think that just because they emit heat that ALL engines must produce contrails at the same altitude.

Some engines need different conditions to leave contrails. Here, for example are an Airbus A340 (maiden flight: 1991) on the left, leaving contrails, and a Boeing 707 (maiden flight: 1957) not leaving contrails. Both are flying at 33,000 feet (part of a German test to study contrail formation), but the newer engines of the A340 produce more water vapor at a different temperature, and so make contrails.

contrailscience.com...

Yes most aircraft use modern turbofan engines, but there are also aircraft still operating with earlier less efficient turbofan engines. Aircraft also utilise turbojets. The aircraft that you claim intersected the other contrail could have been powered by a less efficient turbofan?

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by elrem48

 

For ME they are the likes of something I never grew up seeing in my sky....which entails quite a few decades. I may not give the answer you are looking for, but I DO know when I'm being baited by someone who THINKS he's a smartass!

Why am I a smartass?....I asked you a question is all

I'm 50 years of age, I've seen contrails all my life, they are exactly the same today as they were decades ago!....there may be more now than there was when I was a lad.....but I think you'll find that there are a hell of a lot more planes than there were 40 or 50 years ago.


And you never answered the question....what do chemtrails look like?

You Sir are expressing your opinion, as I, mine. If you REREAD my post, I did answer your question to the best of my ability that will keep me out of a redundant argument that will not solve a thing either way the wind blows(no pun intended). If you read my earlier posts, you will understand where I draw the line for myself (no pun intended again) when discussing this subject. My main objective was to point out the futility of bickering back and forth about this subject.

Originally posted by elrem48


For ME they are the likes of something I never grew up seeing in my sky....which entails quite a few decades.

I was living in Christchurch, New Zealand in the 1960's, in the suburb of Bexley, about 1 km from New Brighton Beach (Bexley got wiped out in the earthquake of Feb 2011)

As a kid I saw contrails from planes flying between Wellington and Dunedin overhead. These were new, because the Boeing 737's that formed them only started flying in NZ in 1968.

Then in 1976 I started an apprenticeship as an aircraft mechanic working for New Zealand National Airways Corporation (NAC) working on those self same 737's - striping them down at C and D checks, working on components and engines in various overhaul shops, including the fuel systems.

And they were still making those contrails - and I never saw anything fitted to them that was not standard equipment as defined in the parts and overhaul manuals.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by elrem48


For ME they are the likes of something I never grew up seeing in my sky....which entails quite a few decades.

I was living in Christchurch, New Zealand in the 1960's, in the suburb of Bexley, about 1 km from New Brighton Beach (Bexley got wiped out in the earthquake of Feb 2011)

As a kid I saw contrails from planes flying between Wellington and Dunedin overhead. These were new, because the Boeing 737's that formed them only started flying in NZ in 1968.

Then in 1976 I started an apprenticeship as an aircraft mechanic working for New Zealand National Airways Corporation (NAC) working on those self same 737's - striping them down at C and D checks, working on components and engines in various overhaul shops, including the fuel systems.

And they were still making those contrails - and I never saw anything fitted to them that was not standard equipment as defined in the parts and overhaul manuals.

I believe you! Correct me if I'm mistaken, but you said the contrails were formed by 737s which started flying in 1968....what about all those WWII pics of contrails? Hmmm.

reply to post by Opportunia


1945 Video at following link

www.britishpathe.com...

1945 Video at following link

www.britishpathe.com...

1945 Video at following link

www.britishpathe.com...

1949 Video at following link

www.britishpathe.com...

1957 contrails.

www.flightglobal.com...

Contrail shadow from 1955

www.flightglobal.com...

1958 correspondence in relation to contrail shadow.

www.flightglobal.com...

1960 Contrail shadow

docs.lib.noaa.gov...

1958

www.flightglobal.com...

contrailscience.com...

1944 and 1945 image examples from this guy on You Tube showing International Cloud Atlas from 1956. The ignorance of the guy is simply staggering because he can't buy into persistent contrails being recorded during 1944 and 1945.

Originally posted by tommyjo

Originally posted by Bilk22
I also remember from childhood that in order to see such a wondrous site, for a kid, was it had to be a a really high elevation. Not so much any more. And, for a planet that's "warming, it's a wonder that we see them at the elevations we do.

Really. So you are claiming that aircraft are now producing contrails at a much lower height? What height do you think the aircraft that you seeing are flying at? Are you saying that they are down at 10,000 feet or lower?

I ask that because there are some extremely misleading videos out there by the die-hard peddlers. They wan't to promote this myth of 'chemtrail sprayers' down at 6,000 feet.

These two videos show the depths that the die-hards will go to. Yes they actually believe that that the aircraft are at 6,000 feet. They can't even work out basic perspective! They can't even be honest and identify the type of aircraft in the second video. No it isn't a C-17 Globemaster but they have to do this in order to claim that is is a 'military operation' . The aircraft is actually a civilian charter Antonov 124. The Antonov is the worlds second largest aircraft and dwarfs the C-17.

What elevation do you think this was at?

How do we know if the government has not made agreements with the suppliers of jet fuel to add certain minerals to the fuel which would effectively make the jet emmissions into engineered chemtrails. If the fuel itself accomplishes the innitiative, there would not need to be special aircraft dispersing it. This is possible with the technology and knowledge man has acquired. Very few people would need to know yet many people could unknowingly be involved......That's what I would do if I was in charge of the geoengeneering program, the skies are full of planes.

Originally posted by Bilk22


What elevation do you think this was at?

Looks like about 1500 feet - but of course it also looks nothing at all like so-called modern "chemtrails".

And it isn't WW2 - it is 1923.

And laying smoke from aircraft isn't exactly secret either

Crashyy, are you in the UK by any chance? I ask this, as I was just watching highlights from the SA vs England cricket test at Lords and there were numerous contrails in the footage (also, the countryside in your pics seemed rather British). I just checked a weather map, and there is indeed a frontal system approaching/over the UK, indicating that atmospheric conditions may have been conducive to contrail formation.

I then checked radiosonde data from Nottingham at 00Z 17 Aug, and it is likely that parts of the atmosphere would support contrail formation. For example, at around 35,000 feet, the temperature was below -50 degrees Celsius and the relative humidity was over 50%.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
I hope you're in the southern hemisphere (where it's winter) because contrails don't form in the summer.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Because it's too hot.

Where's a face-palm pic when you need one

Originally posted by rickymouse
How do we know if the government has not made agreements with the suppliers of jet fuel to add certain minerals to the fuel which would effectively make the jet emmissions into engineered chemtrails.

Buy some fuel, get it tested against the standard for Jet A1, which is readily available on the 'net - let us know if you find anything in there that shouldn't be in there.

Because of course tampering with approved aviation materials (such as fuel) is a crime.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


The nanofuel additives could be in every gallon of jet fuel and we would never know. That is covered under patented chemistry and the analysis would not need to show it if the law allowed it. All jet fuel had lead in it until a couple of years ago. Some probably still does. What is the replacement technology for the replacement of the lead on these jets, without the lead the engines would not work safely before. So what changes were done to the fuel. I doubt if the molybdenum could be used for jet engines but a combination of nano metals would probably work.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


That's no where near 15k feet. I only posted it because he said that it wasn't possible to do from 6k feet. That video looks to be much lower than that. Smoke? It's chemical smoke. It's an aerosol just like they use in chemtrails.

I think I've worked out what we're dealing with here...

I've prepared a couple of images to use as an example.

Image 1:


Image 2:


In the above two images, there are two identical bottles filled with a seemingly identical clear liquid.

There is no way of telling what they are by just looking at them.

I'll say right now that one is distilled water and the other is hydrochloric acid.

This, it appears is what a lot of people here are doing when they go out and take photos of trails and say they're chemtrails.

You don't know.

Stop pretending you do.

Nice photos

I see this pattern a lot and haven't taken many photos.
Except I took these



I'm not sure what they are but I see planes flying away leaving dual trails that eventually expand out into a twirled rope effect, before dissipating.

As far as I can tell these might be regular passenger jets Contrails. The speed at which they fly fits with that. Over my house where I see them the sky is a route towards a small local airport. I'm assuming it's several planes coming from all directions landing or en route out of he airport. Their routes cross paths and I have seen more than one at a time.

My photos above, again this was close to Vancouver It'l airport.

Do you live near an airport?

Originally posted by Bilk22
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

That's no where near 15k feet. I only posted it because he said that it wasn't possible to do from 6k feet. That video looks to be much lower than that. Smoke? It's chemical smoke. It's an aerosol just like they use in chemtrails.

I said 1500, not 15,000 so now you are saying that chemtrails are smoke?

Contrails will form at any altitude where it is cold and humid enough - in Alaska they get "ice fog" which is the same thing at ground level.